|
Re: WCIT outcome?
2013-01-01 19:12:26
At 7:29 PM -0500 1/1/13, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<<mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT
to me, but there are some basics that need to be understood:
On 31/12/2012 21:08, John Day wrote:
At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day
>>
<<mailto:<mailto:jeanjour(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>jeanjour(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net><mailto:jeanjour(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>jeanjour(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
wrote:
...
>> MPs and Congressmen are elected decision makers. ITU participants can
make decisions but they are not binding on anyone and only have effect
if people like me choose to implement them.
This was my point. The standards part of ITU is just like any other
standards organization. But there are other things it does which are not
like this, e.g. spectrum allocation. There are other aspects with
respect to tariffs that are binding on signatories.
Not only tariffs. Historically, it was national enforcement of international
regulations set by CCITT (now known as ITU-T) that prevented interconnection
of leased lines**. This is an arcane point today, but if CERN hadn't been
able to use its status as an international organization to bypass that
restriction in the 1980s, it's unlikely that TBL and Robert Cailliau would
ever have been able to propagate the web. It's even unlikely that Phill
would have been able to access Usenet newsgroups while on shift as a grad
student on a CERN experiment.
I was never a grad student at CERN, I was a CERN Fellow. And I had
access to USENET from DESY but we were routing it through CERN at
first.
Now it is an interesting question as to what might have happened if
the Web had not expanded as it did when it did. But one of the
reasons that it expanded was that there were a lot of parties
involved who were actively wanting to blow up the CITT tariffs and
establish a free market. That was HMG policy at any rate.
I have heard tell (dropping into the vernacular) that to many, the
web was just another application like Gopher until NCSA put a browser
on it. The question is what would have happened had they put the
browser on top of something else?
Also, it is exactly because ITU was in charge of resource allocations
such as radio spectrum and top-level POTS dialling codes that it was
a very plausible potential home for IANA in 1997-8, before ICANN was
created. Some of the ITU people who were active in that debate were just
as active in the preparation for WCIT in 2012.
When the big question facing DNS admin was legal liability in the
various domain name disputes that were proliferating, having a
treaty organization with diplomatic immunity actually had some
advantages.
Agreed but the treaty organization was the WTO and another one I
can't remember right now! ;-) As long as the problem was punted to
them one was okay. I just don't see how ITU has purview over *uses*
of the network. (Nor am I willing to easily cede that.)
This is why it is not a good idea to go along with the ITU
beads-on-a-string model. By doing so, it already clouds the picture
and gives up ground.
But that was a very different time diplomatically. That was before
Putin was ordering assassinations on the streets of London with
Polonium laced teapots and before the colour revolutions rolled back
the Russian sphere of influence. And our side was hardly blameless,
it was the US invasion of Iraq that poisoned the well in the first
place.
True, but what effect does this have? The US did burn up a lot of
good will for no good reason and then botched the job on top of it.
** CCITT document D.1. The 1988 version includes the restrictions on
use of leased lines:
<http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-E&type=items>http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-E&type=items
The 1991 version is much less restrictive, but it remains the case that
interconnections are all "subject to national laws" and that is the basis
for all national limitations on the Internet today. Nevertheless, the 1991
revision of D.1 was absolutely essential for the Internet to grow
internationally.
The idea of fixing the contract terms in an international treaty is
utterly bizarre.
It would be foolish to imagine that the Internet is in some way immune
to ITU-T regulations, which is why the effort to defeat the more radical
WCIT proposals was so important.
While technically true, I think your wording is misleading.
Why is this technically true? Honest question.
ITU-T has absolutely no control over the Internet unless member
governments decide to give it that power. The importance of the
protests was that they prevented the US and EU governments from
agreeing to cede that power.
Agreed.
Within the US government there are different factions. What was
important was to ensure that the pro-control faction did not get the
chance to agree to give the store away.
My model here (for better or worse) is the origin of the US
Constitution. The Constitution does not create a hierarchical
structure. The States cede parts of their sovereignty to the Federal
government. Those things better done across States, rather than
individually: Common currency, regulating interstate commerce,
defense, etc. The Federal government is alongside the State
governments. The EU is a confederation that is doing some of these
as well. The UN is a very weak confederation, so the question to
consider is what aspects of *telecommunication* (not defense or
commerce or anything else) does it make sense that there should be
international regulation (or binding agreements)?
So far, my list is pretty short. In fact, there is wireless spectrum
and that is it. And even there, I would suggest only above certain
transmitter power levels.
Actually, I would have to apply the same criteria to the FCC. ;-)
|
|